Syria has definitely gotten serious; American politicians, not so much. The shallowness of thought on both sides of the debate on what to do about Syria since the latest sarin gas attack could not wet an ankle. Rand Paul, who got the Egypt situation entirely wrong, is one of the few asking the important questions on this issue.
The situation in Washington, as it stands, is just a political manipulation in the face of serious global threats. The President’s position is something like this:
“I’m a strong and serious President and I have decided we are going to do something.”
“It will be limited and totally ineffective. And those Republicans in Congress better support me; otherwise it will be all their fault. ”
“And if the Republicans do give me the authorization I demand and things go badly, that too will be their fault because they authorized it. Republicans are good only for political cover.”
“But don’t worry; I’m going to send in my army, but no boots on the ground, no real soldiers. Americans would not like that. And say what you will about me, I lead from behind.”
“I’m going to send in my air force too, but no real planes or pilots; maybe a drone or a missile, as many as we can afford. To hell with it; send them all.”
“But I’m going to bomb something. You can be sure about that. But nothing where anyone would actually be hurt or anything because I’m a great humanitarian you know; maybe some empty buildings. You know, to send a message”
“I’m a real military leader now. In fact you might as well just call me ‘Commandante’.
The only thing serious about this President is the trouble we are in. It’s amateur night at the White House. Obama’s military acumen makes Jimmy Carter look like Sun Tzu (ancient Chinese author of Art of War). Now, Obama claims it does not matter when we respond to this chemical attack; could be a day, a month, or a year. I think it might matter to a Syrian family who could be the next target of a chemical attack.
Syria is more complicated than just two warring factions. There are several: the Assad regime, known for being unpleasant and an undesirable neighbor; perhaps some true secular Syrians just yearning to be free might be still operating in the theater; and at least two radical Islamic groups who, once they have effectively killed every Christian and Jew on the planet, will then turn on each other. It is slim pickins as they say in the world of country music. It is hard to figure out who to cuddle up next to. Even a robot, following Asimov’s first two laws of robotics 1-that no robot may injure a human, 2-that no robot, through inaction, can allow a human to be injured, would blow flux capacitors out its ears trying to figure out this one.
Unlike the two Bush’s (41 & 43) who, in handling Iraq, could only manage coalitions of 37 and 30 nations respectively, Obama, who promised to ‘restore’ America’s stature among the nations, has built a solid coalition consisting of France, who promises to deliver croissants if nothing else. Obama is now flailing around trying to look somehow Presidential. This is new territory for him.
There are only two targets, which if taken out, could possibly have a good effect on the deteriorating situation in Syria. One is the delivery systems for these weapons. Understand that this would be useful only temporarily. The weapons, still intact, would continue to be a threat. It is much easier to design a suitcase chemical weapon than it is to design a nuclear one. Add to this the difficulty of remotely taking out the highly mobile delivery systems. The only effective permanent targets are the actual chemical weapons and the facilities which produce them. Military experts say this would almost surely require boots on the ground (perhaps a lot of them) and not a single politician is comfortable calling for this one effective action.
The situation includes a brutal dictator who has been in possession of chemical weapons for some time. He has never used them on Western interests, but has now dusted them off and used them in a desperate attempt to retain power. Of the several factions that seek to depose him, only the weakest may be considered unlikely to use the weapons against us given the chance. Yet some, who are calling for action, are saying we should take out Assad. But who then is in charge of the chemical weapons? Are we comfortable with ‘anyone but Assad?’ Additionally, this would throw the victory to whom? Do we think it does not matter who controls Syria or these internationally forbidden weapons?
Others suggest we just knock down some empty buildings to send a message. This is most analogous to a child throwing a tantrum. The message would be ‘we are upset, but we cannot think of any effective response.’ If you want to send a message, post it on Facebook.
All of these proposed ineffective responses are building a ‘no action in Syria’ coalition composed of hawks, doves and cuckoos. Politics makes strange bed fellows. But these are the smart ones. What would be the wisdom of risking lives and spending treasure only to tarnish our reputation and poke the wasp nest with a stick? Ineffective action is worse than no action at all.
Then there are all those pesky questions Rand Paul is asking. Would Iran or Syria immediately attack Israel if the US were to execute a limited strike on Syria? Would Russia weigh in? Who would be in charge of the chemical weapons? What might they do with them? Then there is the question no one is asking. What is happening to the Syrian Christians, the Greek Orthodox and Catholics who make up 10% of the population? The US should be airlifting Christians out of Egypt, Syria and all over the Middle East. Are we prepared militarily to effectively handle all these contingencies? This is no time for amateurs. If we cannot answer all these questions confidently and affirmatively, we have no business in this game.
